Originally published at: http://timeghost.tv/enter-adolf-hitler-from-the-left-between-2-wars-1919-part-4-of-4/
The fledgling democracy in Germany struggles to survive as the German Revolution escalates into a downright civil war. In one of the German States, Bavaria Adolf Hitler appears on the stage within the context of the Bavarian Soviet Revolution. Hosted by: Indy Neidell Written by Spartacus Olsson and Indy Neidell Directed by: Spartacus Olsson Produced…
3 Likes
About the music…
The leading piece in this episode is Edward Elgar’s Cello Concerto in e minor, op. 85 - iv. allegro. Elgar composed this piece in 1919, supposedly in contemplation about WWI. He wrote the main melody immediately after waking up after a tonsillectomy, and then he completed it at his country cottage.
He had spent long periods of time at the cottage during the war. It being situated in south eastern England, close to the English channel he said that he would lie awake at night listening to the sound of the distant artillery bombardment on the other side of the channel. The memory of that inspired the contemplative nature of the piece, which stands in stark contrast to Elgar’s earlier, more bombastic and upbeat works. While highly appreciated for its complexity nowadays, the piece was not a success at the time when it was performed, and was to be Elgar’s last major work.
Elgar in the recording studio in 1920 recording the cello concerto
For the section about the German revolution I used an excerpt from STRAVINSKY Firebird, The Infernal Dance of Kastchei’s Subjects. First performed in Paris 1910 the Firebird ballet was Stravinsky’s only popular success. The section I used is the part in the story where the Firebird spirit casts a spell on the subjects of the evil sorcerer Kastchei, forcing them to dance infernally until they all die. I felt the imagery was fitting for the situation in Germany in 1919, when many came under the spell of extremist ideologies, descending into madness.
Of course I also used Holst’s Mars - Bringer of War again in the piece, as it continues to fit extremely well to the state of the world.
2 Likes
Commentary regarding our portrayal of Hitler:
Those of you who follow our work since a longer time will know that we are loath to tell a skewed or biased version of the events we portray. Our aim with how we tell Hitler’s story is neither to exonerate him, nor to vilify him; the facts speak for themselves and we are convinced that we neither need to add, nor subtract emphasis to the story of Hitler and the Nazis.
In many other works covering Hitler you will see a tendency to hang the events of this epoch on the leaders that rose to power in the period. While it is unquestionable that the impact of those leaders was far reaching and instrumental in how the events evolved, it should not be forgotten that these men (and a few women) were not created in a bubble. As postulated in the main historiographical theory dealing with the impact of leadership, Zeitgeist Theory (from were we take or brand name btw.) it is easily seen at that it was not the characters that created the times, but the times that created the characters who then steered the events as they evolved.
This is an uncomfortable position to take, because it leads to the next conclusion: Germany, Japan and Italy did also not exist inside bubbles. This in turn leads us to have to look at the entire picture of the world to understand the events that followed. Inevitably this will not lead to a black and white picture of good guys vs. bad guys. Instead we face a complex situation where many cogwheels interact to bring about the situation that eventually leads to war.
To be clear: once again we are not seeking to exonerate, or vilify anyone. What with the extensive crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Axis powers before and during the war, there is always the risk of comparing apples and oranges when you dive into this area. To avoid that conundrum, the war crimes perpetrated by the Allies are often brushed aside, or simply justified as an unfortunate part of war. Again to be clear: while the firebombing of Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Osaka and many other cities does constitute war crimes, it does not exonerate the murder of tens of millions of people by the Nazis. Furthermore the sheer difference in numbers and method speak for themselves (if you must look at a comparison of who was worse than the other).
Our interest will always be to tell the story as accurately as we can and let the story itself provide judgement. At no point will we waiver from telling a part of the story just because it makes one side or the other look better or worse. Also, we will not get involved in the moral arguments surrounding this, such as that certain acts were justified because they led to victory, or were the lesser evil. It is not our job to make that kind of moral judgement - that is up to the philosophers of the world and we’re mere tellers of history.
Regarding Hitler’s political views in 1919:
The fact that Hitler had liberal sympathies in 1919, should not be misunderstood as a foundation for an argument that Naziism was a left wing ideology. While Hitler and Drexler did incorporate social welfare concepts and anti-capitalist ideas into their agenda, the national socialist doctrine is clearly a derivative of conservatism, not progressivism.
Contrary to communism that focuses on class and internationalism, Naziism focuses on race and nationalism. Naziism espouses traditional social conservative views regarding gender roles, division of labour, social values, and foreign relations. Communism claims to be egalitarian while Naziism espouses an elitist world view. Communism seeks to create a completely new economic system based on overthrowing traditional trade and profit ideas, Naziism espouses economic protectionism and state regulated capitalism. In one aspect the two ideologies do share a common denominator, namely in the repression of the financial transfer economy (money lending, property speculation and so on). This last bit has often been misrepresented as proof that Naziism is a left-wing ideology, but that would be a fallacious conclusion as this is not at the centre of the ideology, but rather an artefact of the somewhat contradictory antisemitic ideas of Naziism.
Last but not least the main unique feature of Naziism that differentiates it from Fascism is the outspoken antisemitism at the heart of the ideology. Absurdly Hitler came to equate Jews with robber capitalists AND communism. As strange as that is, it’s a way of thinking that was not only prevalent with Hitler, but also with other political thinkers like Charles Maurras, a frenchman who formulated an early form of Naziism already in the late 1880s and 1890s (yes we will cover him). The basis of this is their belief in a world conspiracy led by the Jews that was aimed at the overthrow of what they perceived as ‘their race.’ Based on that, robber capitalism and Bolshevik Communism were seen as instruments in this imaginary war of the races. The idea was also promoted within the context of the Russian Revolution, where for instance the fabricated Protocols of The Elders of Zion, aimed to show that the ‘Jewish conspiracy’ was a driving force behind the revolution.
6 Likes
I believe a very thorough analysis on the delicate matter was made by the famous BBC documentary “The Nazis: A Warning from History”, especially in the last of the six episodes, in which there is an attempt to explain why the Germans, a people like any other, accepted the racist Nazi policy and remained loyal to Hitler and Nazism until the end…
Another interesting interpretation is given in the tv movie Nuremberg in the words of psychologist Gustave Gilbert, more or less mirroring what Hannah Arendt later wrote, describing Eichmann’s trial, conserning the “Banality of Evil”
And what about the Rape of Nanking, when Japanese publicized their massacres?
It’s a very interesting topic, from the kind that never ends…
3 Likes
In reference to the “putting the fox in charge of the hen house” line in this episode, Hitler’s CO giving him permission to infiltrate the DAP doesn’t seem so odd when the fox thinks that he is a guard dog.
1 Like
I think he didn’t think much at all - seems more like he was a frustrated veteran, drifting, falling from one thing to the other - Drexler provided him a harbour to anchor in, and a stage to spew out his frustration, fear, and hatred. Our fox line is 20/20 hindsight of course…
3 Likes
As we have gotten the question repeatedly why Nazism and Fascism are traditionally viewed as extreme right wing and opposed to the extreme left wing ideologies of Communism and Socialism, here the explanation:
Fascism and Naziism are placed on the right side of the political spectrum because of their advocation of nationalism and socially conservative values, but also because of the fiscal philosophy they espouse. The economic policy advocated by Fascists and Nazis are not purely anti-capitalistic, they strive for a mixed economy where the free market remains in the hands of the owners, but to secure autarky (self sufficiency) these are heavily regulated by protectionism and interventionism, which are also traditionally conservative values. Thus, the extreme right wing parties are neither advocating the abolition of property, nor the creation of a collective ownership of goods and resources. The extreme right wing parties are outspokenly autocratic, with the belief in leadership by one strong person that dictates. Last but not least Naziism and Fascism are elitist ideologies that believe in a society organised by class based on capital, ethnicity and loyalty to the leader.
Socialism and Communism by contrast is categorised by the belief in liberal social values, a non-national planned economy, with abolition of private ownership, and the creation of a collective. The goal is to create a society that reaches autarky based on redistribution of goods and assets according to the needs of the collective. Because the left wing extreme ideologies are striving for plan economy they are by definition interventionist, but do not espouse protectionism as a philosophy, although the stark contrast and incompatibility with free markets creates isolationism by default. In theory the extreme left wing does not believe in autocracy (dictatorship), but in a one party system ruled by elective committee - in reality this has always lead by default to a dictatorship. Last but not least Socialism and Communism are egalitarian in nature and strives for the abolition of all classes to create a universally equal population.
There are some common denominators but they are found in the execution of how to achieve the goals and not in the goals themselves. While Socialism is does not advocate a violent revolution per se, Communism, Naziism, and Fascism have an outspoken belief in the use of violence and oppression to secure the goals of the ideology. All four ideologies espouse the idea of abolition of political parties in favour of a one-party system.
There is one more common denominator and that is the lack of success by all of the ideologies. In the one hundred years that we have witnessed a wide variety of attempts to implement these ideologies they have so far failed to create stable prosperous societies, at least in their original versions. We have yet to see the outcome of the gigantic Socialist/Communist experiment in China, but so far it has not resulted in the egalitarian, communal system that it intended to create.
1 Like